Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Sunnisoldier786, Oct 21, 2020.
madarij, near the end of volume 1 (in the available copies online, v1 p563 onward)
Could you please provide the reference to where shaykh abd al haqq mentions this, I would like to read it.
جزاكم الله خيرا
جزاک اللہ خیرا
your response is appreciated, and i am looking forward to the translation of the first volume of bahar e shariat being released. may all your efforts be accepted and rewarded.
it is indeed true that many muslims have adopted victorian mentality when it comes to sex and sexual desires and we see the effects of this. many muslims in the west who do oppose homosexuality reflect more the traditional victorian view, rather than anything our classical scholars may have said regarding it.
likewise when it comes to female sexuality, to the extent some muslims (usually men) think that normal and decent women do not experience lust or have sexual needs, or at least very meagre as compared to men.
there are a lot of christian victorian-era views the muslim community must rid themselves of and return back to the traditional understanding which our noble predecessors held. this can allow us not only to understand our religion better but also understand more about human nature and how it can be applied in a modern context, where the balance which islam upholds is rarely found, with people going to extremes in such matters relating to sexuality and relationships.
i just heard mawlana shahid ali after posting this. he also mentions similar things vide al-sirat al-halabiyyah.
abdu'l halim sitting on the holier-than-thou seat may please pontificate if this hadith is taught in devband (they claim to teach/read bukhari hence the question. if they don't, it is fine. we understand).
is this hadith explained with a commentary or not?
while it can imply intimacy, it can also mean 'enjoy the company' 'be pleased with being in their company'
the word متع does not always mean intercourse. it has a broad meaning and in fact, it means "enjoy the advantage of" as in tamattu' in Hajj.
in this specific citation, the word that implies intimacy is: 'يضاجع' which is more direct and not يستمتع which has broad meanings.
for example, in sunan abi dawud, kitab al-libas: "the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam allowed us to make use of (يستمتع) the skin of dead animals (maytah - i.e. not slaughtered) after tanning them" [#4124]
but the most important point here is not about disowning the statement of ibn aqil upon its face-value. we do not have to.
the issue here is with the 'morality' bandied about by the these two clowns and by their earlier masters - which is a shade of victorian morality.
the question we should be asking is: "is (permissible) sexual intercourse bad or shameful or degrading?"
islam does not call it a 'dirty thing' when it is permissible; except, that it is something that modesty and islamic mores require that we do not speak of it explicitly, and that we keep it a private matter.
other than that there is no problem with it.
shaykh abdul haq muhaddith dihlawi in the end of madarij al-nubuwwah argues about this issue (sexual intercourse) specificially and argues that if it were a filthy thing, it would not be in jannah. so it is a legitimate physical need, and enjoying it in a permissible manner is just as enjoying other physical pleasures such as good food or comfortable homes etc. and he points out that if it were a bad or even a dislikeable thing, the Prophets (alayhimu's salam) would not engage in such acts.
so we must ask ourselves, why is it offensive or 'insulting'? or are we imposing victorian morality upon ourselves? astaghfirullah.
unlike the christian description of paradise, where people apparently will grow wings and play harps, the muslim description of paradise is one that speaks of physical comforts and pleasures. and this does not have to be guilty or something to be ashamed of. unless of course, one's world views are shaped by western/christian influences. al-iyadhu-billah.
================================from bahar e shariat --------------------------------
Allah knows best.
When ibn aqil say يستمتع بهن, what is meant by this?
Devbandi duo responded to the response on Shab bashi but were countered again. Caught lying:
Response on shab baashi
Where and when did he retract his claims...
all of those are lies and we dare deobandis to have these lies attested by any of their naam-war maulvis; even zameel will do.
and THEN, the burden of proof is on those who make these accusations.
there is a second option. i am willing to do mubahalah with any devbandi maulvi (or all of them put together) concerning the lies spewed below about the imam of ahlu's sunnah imam aHmad riDa khan raDi'Allahu anhu. i say that all of those charges are falsehoods (some are misrepresentations) - let them claim that all of that is truth as stated. and then:
sub'HanAllah, all of this rancour directed towards alahazrat, only because he refuted those who disrespected Allah and His Rasul sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
وإلى الله المشتكى
So firstly, Abdul Haleem has to accept that Zurqani does mention it and he was wrong to attribute misquoting to Alahazrat.
Let's see his sincerity...
there's a concise and good Urdu explanation here (from 2015), along with the scan of the same page from the sharh of Zarqani that Abu Hasan posted.
PS. i only came across this site when these kadh'dhabin started their pathetic video releases. it seems they want to rehash and revive their old deobandis' tales all over again. maybe they want to keep their lies floating on top of the search results, so they keep recycling them.
it seems the devbandi sewer keeps overflowing with the same lies and filth over and over again. this time for the uk, the baton's been passed on to these two clowns from bradford.
see below one of the comments by a jahil deobandi, on the article link posted by AMQadiri - have a good read of it and see for yourselves the intellectual stature of these 2 youtube dogs of hellfire - what exactly have they researched and just how thoroughly! these dirty dogs deserve nothing less than the most ruthless pound!
(reproducing here for future reference to stuff "we never imagined in our wildest dreams". it seems these 2 dogs are even following the same sequence of "objections" as that listed out below by the other devbandi. expect another few videos pertaining to the other "objections" mentioned in this list below.)
in which language?
What is the translation of Ibn Aqeel's statement?
Found this. To add to the discussion.
yes. for brothers who don't know the meaning of the term 'shab baashi' - it is a rather broad term which is used as a euphemism - unlike the explicit term used by this shaytan:
The crux of the matter is the deos refuse to entertain objectivity whether that is in relation to the works of their elders or their opponent. This Abu Haleem is more crude and drenched in hatred than the shameless Uthsman (bringing shame on a beautiful name)
I now laugh at their quibbling and anger when Shaykh Asrar brought their intellectual capacity into question, when clearly their lack of intellectual credability and objectivity is no longer in question. In an era of cults the deos might yet still set the same shameless standard
as for mr.devbandi's holier-than-thou outburst on talking about parents etc. and making a scene about alahazrat's use of a rather demure word 'shab-bashi', i advise him to please look up deo literature for their treatment of such subjects. hope he has some advice for qasim nanotvi, who examines in this topic in detail his aab e Hayaat. but of course, zameel-e-shaytan will drop from somewhere to justify the most outrageous things devs say, but vilify harmless words said by sunnis. also in cases where both parties have said the same thing (such as the tuu issue), devs vilify sunnis, all the while sitting on a high horse praising the usage of their own elders. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
download qasim's work here:
1323 edition here: https://archive.org/details/AabEHayatByMolanaQasimNanotvi
while thanawi said that the life of nabiy sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is 'barzakhiyah', khalil flatly refused it in his muhannad. so deos can have a version for the right occasion. and of course, have a middle-ground to link both: "duniyawiyyah-barzakhiyyah" the left-right, the whitest-black.
they try hard to be vague and equivocating - so they can jump over to either side as the occasion demands.
aHmaqon ki kami nahin ghalib
kitne saare to devband hi meiN hain
imam muhammad ibn abdu'l baqi al-zurqani is famous for his sharh of mawahib al-ladunniyyah of imam al-qaSTallani.
he born in 1055 AH and passed away in 1122 AH. his father is the famous maliki scholar, imam abdul Baqi ibn yusuf al-zurqani, the exegete of mukhtaSar al-khalil. among the works of al-zurqani (the son) are: anwar kawakib nahj al-salik sh. muwaTTa' imam malik and sharh al-bayquniyah.
this devvie says that imam zurqani did not say it anywhere. but it can be found in the sharh al-mawahib, v.8 p.358 as shown below. (aqdas had already posted but here is a screenshot of the printed page).
now will he retract? and apologise? (don't hold your breath...)
but there are other mistakes. the devbandi says that they believe in the lives of prophets after their passing. but thanawi said that their lives are 'barzakhiyah'. this has led to an internal disagreement with devs, calling hayati and mamati devs, even though all of them are soulless beings.
notice in the snippet, i have posted from zurqani, that imam subki said (and zurqani affirmed) that their lives are 'haqiqiyah', real, and not just figurative.
also note that alahazrat's statement from al-malfuz speaks in respectful tone, unlike the 'explanation' by the filthy deobandi which are from his own mind - not found in al-malfuz.
thanawi in hifzul iman:
malfuz of alahazrat, dawate islami ed. p.362